Fred Nile is in the news again. For at least the third time, Nile is introducing a private members bill to the NSW Parliament seeking to ban the Burqa.
I understand his frustration. I myself have made numerous attempts to ban the tie at my college. It is a well known fact that tie wearers are 10 times more likely than T-shirt wearers to engage in acts of corporate terrorism. The tie conceals the true nature of the person. When you look at a tie wearer, what you think you see is a respectable citizen. In fact, however, Christopher Skase wore a tie, as did Bernard Modoff, the biggest fraudster in history.
As Nile suggests of the Burqa, “an open society has no place for the tie.” Tie wearers generally have no choice in the matter, forced by their corporate oppressors to “tie the knot” daily. More worryingly, under the supposedly respectable veneer of the tie is concealed an iphone with offshore bank details, and trails of money used to fund Japanese whaling and mining explorations of the barrier reef. We must do all we can to protect ourselves from corporate greed. Banning the tie is the only answer.
Anyway, i am interested to hear your comments – what do you think about the ban on the burqa (and the tie).
14 Comments
Daniel Fuchs
June 23, 2010 at 11:16 amIdeal of feminism – to respect a woman’s right to choose what she wants to wear.
In all honesty, the appearance of the burqua does arouse feelings of suspicion and distrust when I see one. Are these feelings justified by the recent terrorist activities and scandals, propagated by western journalists? I think not. At the heart of this issue is fear. I am sometimes afraid to abandon my own sense of righteousness in order to love as Jesus loved – all embracing.
If however, I connect with a burqua-wearer and her family on a personal level, all of a sudden we come to know each other as people. Our point of connection is not something superficial (likes, dislikes, fashion sense, love/hate relationship with the Dr Phil show), which brings division, but is something personal (our humanity and relatedness), which unites us.
The answer – ban our own sense of self-righteousness, self preservation and mission and instead, empowered by the love and Spirit of God, set out to love as many people as possible, from every race, demographic and religion.
Matt 15:16-20
“Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’ “
Kristie P (@KPieber)
April 25, 2012 at 5:56 pmEating with unwashed hands may not make you unclean, but it may make you sick…
Shane Clifton
June 23, 2010 at 11:24 amThe real question, Daniel, is whether or not the women is getting the choice to wear the burqa. I am in two minds on this one. I struggle with the Christian tendency to demonise all Muslims, and to depersonalise the Burqa wearing women. But i also struggle with religious (and cultural) attitudes that suggest wearing a Burqa is a good idea. Such seems inherently sexist to me.
Jonathan Gibbard
June 23, 2010 at 11:47 amI understand the reason for the Burqa; to put it simply, the masculine brain is wired in such a way that when our eyes focus on anything sexually appealling (this may even simply be a beautiful face for some), a chain reaction begins to take place in our brain chemistry; the production of Testosterone leading us down a path of sexual arrousal. The issue here I believe is not an identity crisis of Muslim women… it’s an identity crisis of all men who don’t know how to master their own God-given sexuality! So I can see perfectly why the burqa is a well-intended idea, however what it really is, is laying the responsibility on women for man’s lack of mastery over his own sexuality. What I believe is needed in our society is training and greater teaching and support for men, regarding their identity as biologically male.
The evidence is clear; prostitution, pornography, sexually-implicit advertising, are all rampantly thriving buisnesss today and they are all predominantly aimed at making a profit out of the weakness of a man to master his own sexuality! The focus shouldn’t be on the side effects (the Burqa, prostitution, pornography, sexually-implicit advertising)…
The focus should be on the root cause of these problems; the severely damaged and twisted idendity of men in society and the dire lack of anything being done about it, nor even a reasonable public awareness.
Jonathan Gibbard
June 23, 2010 at 11:53 amWe have accomplished a fair bit in our attempt to set women free, but can women really be free when they are still held responsible for men’s lack of identity?
Daniel Fuchs
June 23, 2010 at 2:32 pmGood call Doc! I too see the problems associated with the (generally) oppressive and sexist culture from which burqua-wearering women stem but is it my job to bring liberation by force or by dialogue? Their culture, sexist as it may be, is also undergoing it’s own discourse and reflection.
Analytically, it would be good to source a case study on the cultural effects of a ‘forced liberation’ as being instigated in France in order to ascertain how this law negatively or positively affirms the muslim family unit. This would help Australia to gauge the outcome. But the reality is that these muslim families are living within another culture where freedom of choice and diversity is celebrated. How then can we force our values on the muslim family unit as a whole and expect them to appreciate the Christ-centred values we affirm?
Vision for Australia: the Church (national/universal) so loves its local communities because it is set on fire by a daily, fresh revelation of Jesus Christ. This revelation fuels a passion in believers to BE the love in their local community and in turn, muslim and other religious communities cannot help but be drawn into the loving and rehabilitating family of Christ and his followers.
Craig Benno
June 23, 2010 at 3:59 pmShane there is another twist to your tie wearing scenario and that is to open the door for all to be able to be free to wear the tie. In saying it,
I wonder if the Burqua also involves a communual cultural aspect that perhaps we can’t / don’t understand in our individualist culture? One question to ask is does the Burgua shut women out of society or protect them from society?
Jonathon, I have some struggle with your saying,
The focus should be on the root cause of these problems; the
severely damaged and twisted idendity of men in society and
the dire lack of anything being done about it, nor even a reasonable
public awareness.
Are you saying that all men have twisted identities, or that it is only men who have twisted identities and women don’t?
Deborah Taggart
July 2, 2010 at 1:06 pminterestingly, some women – especially teenagers – say they feel liberated by wearing the burqa, or other coverings. Liberated from the pressure of having to look a certain way.
The pressures Western ‘civilisation’/billboards/magazines put on women has a lot to answer for as well! Do you think measures like this [http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/27/2938153.htm] will make a difference?
Shane Clifton
July 2, 2010 at 1:24 pmI hope so deb!
Craig Benno
July 24, 2010 at 9:17 pmHi Shane.
Here is an interesting media release by Gordon Moyes about his approach about the Burqa. http://www.nsw-familyfirst.org.au/newsletter/MEDIA%20RELEASE%20Gordon%20Moyes%20suggests%20a%20better%20way%20to%20deal%20with%20the%20confronting%20burqa.pdf
I think his approach makes a lot of sense.
Shane Clifton
July 25, 2010 at 10:35 amCraig, i find his position slightly confusing. He seems at first to be telling us Christians that we should be more accepting and tolerant – that if we are feeling uncomfortable around people in a Burqa, then the problem is ours.
But then he goes on to invite the Muslim to lunch to tell them that they should not put their wives in a Burqa? Does this mean i have read the first part incorrectly, since the action he is taking is not to get Christians to change but Muslims? And does he honestly believe that he will convince a Mulsim who believes in the Burqa to change their position over lunch?
Craig Benno
July 25, 2010 at 1:48 pmHi Shane.
I read it differently as an attempt to diffuse Fred Niles attacks. He is approaching the Muslim community to engage in conversation about the burqa and how this country allows for individual choice regarding dress. The emphasise being the individuals choice…not forced to wear.
I see it as a win win form of engagement. Just as some see the Burqa as threatening… many within the Muslim community see our dress sense as sleazy.
My mother in law went to a meeting with Gordon Moyes and the Family First party last week. At this meeting Gordon shared how this party was not a Christian only party, but was going to be all for family….therefore it was open to having Muslim, Hindu etc party members candidates who were for supporting the family unit.
Shane Clifton
July 26, 2010 at 10:54 amWow. I hope they carry through with that.
Kristie P (@KPieber)
April 25, 2012 at 6:16 pmI feel the argument of banning the burqa was improperly targeted. Had those wanting to dilute cultures taken an holistic approach and posed the argument, ‘Are Islamic cultures genuinely oppressing women?’ perhaps the burqa would have fazed itself out as a result of women’s liberation (in the event that the statement proved correct).
As I have grown up in our ‘sexualised’ society I have not experienced hiding my sexuality behind a burqa or a hijab. Thus, I do not know if it right or wrong (or neither). I understand that there are security concerns that a burqa may be used to hide one’s identity to commit a crime. Balaclavas, motorbike helmets and halloween costumes hold only the same risks. Yes, it is the law that a helmet/headgear must be removed for certain transactions, but I still feel that the ‘Ban the burqa’ campaign is largely racist, or at the very least, culturally insensitive.